Confessions of a She-Geek

September 19, 2015

It’s a Fan’s World

Filed under: Media — Teresa @ 5:35 pm
Tags: , , , , , ,

Given my on-screen name, it should come as no surprise that I am, and have been for most of my life, a lover of sci-fi, fantasy, and (to a somewhat lesser degree) comics. When I was a kid, the word most frequently used to describe my main focus/interest (aside from “geek” or “nerd”) was Trekkie – although I was into other things, as well. These days my genre-based enthusiasms would likely have me labeled more as a fangirl (which is fine by me).

The advent of social media has brought with it a fairly standard set of fandom… traits? Tools? Avenues? These aren’t all new things by any means, but the scope has expanded. These traits/tools/avenues include on-line discussions hosted on pop-culture sites like The AV Club and Previously.TV; Twitter feeds, fan art/blogs/crafts/fiction/pages/videos, and fan conventions. People who share interest in the same things, can find one another and build a community virtually overnight. And these communities can be amazingly well-organized. As a fangirl (and borderline-Type A), I approve.

I also approve of the emerging trend that channels all this creative energy and enthusiasm into a force for positive change in the world. In an earlier post I mentioned how actor Misha Collins co-founded a charity called, which is accomplishing some very impressive things, both large and small. What I didn’t mention is that this charity’s growing visibility is largely thanks to the fan base of a tv show on the CW network, called Supernatural. If the stories are to be believed, Mr. Collins started a Twitter account several years ago at the behest of the network executives, as a way of connecting to and increasing the fan base. He realized fairly quickly that the fandom was a huge, but largely-untapped, resource – and (if you’ll pardon the expression), tapped it.

He’s far from the only celebrity to do this. YouTube vloggers John and Hank Green created DFTBA out of the fan community that sprung up around their YouTube channel. Actor Zachary Levi (from genre shows Chuck and the Heroes reboot) donates the proceeds from the annual fan event, Nerd HQ, to such causes as Operation Smile, and there are many, many other examples out there.

I know this isn’t a new thing: celebrities like Paul Newman have used their fame to found and support charities for a very long time. But those activities are based on the actor; not any specific fandom. I’m talking more about the trend for fandoms to unite not only in their love for a tv show/film franchise/comic book title/book series, but also in their desire to make a positive change in the world. This is a new thing, and one that I absolutely endorse.


September 13, 2015

More Than a Feeling…

Filed under: Daily life — Teresa @ 11:43 pm
Tags: , ,

I’ve heard it said that suffering builds compassion. In suffering, conventional wisdom tells us, we find common ground on which we can build connections and help to raise each other up. It does seem that many people choose to turn their pain into something positive, building up from what was burned down much in the way that forest fires can lead to new growth.

A couple weeks ago the Twitterverse blew up when actor Misha Collins was mugged in Minneapolis. Fortunately he wasn’t seriously injured and has fully recovered since then. Rumor has it that he refused to press charges against his attackers, and despite the attack he still participated in the fan convention that he flew in to attend. He chose to put aside whatever he was going through to do what he thought was most beneficial.

Now, this actor uses his celebrity to do some impressive things, including establishing a charity called Random Acts. Mr. Collins’ actions suggest that he is deeply compassionate and committed to helping others wherever he can. At various Q and A sessions with fans, he has alluded to a less-than-ideal childhood, marked by poverty (he was homeless for a time) and a fair amount of adversity. Yet he emerged from these experiences with a heart for helping people who are struggling. Was it his own experiences that made him so determined to lighten other people’s loads?

On the flip side, is it possible for a person who has never faced adversity to understand what it is to struggle? Does someone born in the lap of luxury have the capacity to empathize with someone who has to choose between keeping a roof overhead and food in his belly? Anecdotal evidence suggests that the pampered rich may not be able to grasp something so far outside their own experience **coughdonaldtrumpcough**. If you’ve never been hurt, or hungry, or cold, you won’t be as inclined to help someone who is hurt/hungry/cold.

Yet recent scientific studies suggest otherwise. Just Google “toddlers and empathy” and see for yourself. Human beings seem to be hard-wired for compassion toward one another. So what happens? How do we go from being naturally predisposed to kindness, to the merciless nastiness that is far too prominent in the world? Why does pain lead some people to greater kindness and others to cruelty?

Maybe it’s not the pain itself, but our response to the pain that makes us bitter. I’m happy to say that I’ve rarely been seriously injured, but have on occasion needed to take heavy-duty (prescription!) painkillers. I’ve noted that while under their influence, I may still feel pain, but I don’t mind that it hurts. And if I don’t mind the pain, I can ignore it and get on with things. So is that the answer? Is holding on to our natural compassion more a matter of just accepting that potential pain, and if it hurts, then it hurts?

Maybe so.

August 22, 2015

The Greatest Help of All?

Lately a lot of thoughts have been swirling around my head about the concept of help and how it applies to daily life. On the surface, it seems pretty straightforward: help is providing assistance to someone in need. The assistance may be financial, physical, emotional, spiritual, or some combination thereof.

It’s a fundamental concept in a number of world religions. Most people agree that it is good to help those who need it; consensus seems to be that we are actually obligated to help one another. Some even say that’s our purpose in life. But when it comes to practical application, the nature of what it means to help is surprisingly divisive.

The arguing begins where the rubber meets the road. For example, government-sponsored social programs provide assistance, but only when someone can prove that they actually need it. Fair enough: there are a limited number of resources available, and squandering them on people who don’t really need the assistance means less is available for the people who really, really do. From a practicality standpoint, that just makes sense.

But a small percentage of people are gaming the system, successfully obtaining more help than they actually need. The response has been to add more regulations, making it harder to commit fraud – which unfortunately also makes it harder for the people who do need government assistance, to get it. For programs based on the principle that help should only be given to people who actually need it, the increasing amounts of red tape may well be a necessary evil.

Here’s where it gets a bit trickier: are we directed to give help to people who need it, or to people we deem worthy of it? For example, if someone commits a heinous crime, but also clearly is in dire need of counseling, are we obliged to provide it in addition to punishment? Or are we able to say that criminals may need help, but they don’t deserve it – and therefore we are justified in withholding it? Is helping criminals somehow diminishing the suffering they’ve caused to victims and their families?  Maybe this isn’t an either-or proposition; maybe we’re supposed to help both criminals and victims – an idea many would object to as adding insult to injury.

I struggle with the concept that help should be based on merit. I don’t like the notion that I’m deciding who is worthy and who isn’t, but I find myself falling into this way of thinking. I see a panhandler on a street corner and automatically question whether the person actually needs help, or is just claiming to need it. Is it my place to decide whether that person is telling the truth? Yes, it’s my money, and yes, I can decide what I should do with it. But if I’m commanded to give help when it’s needed, isn’t it enough that he (or she) says the need exists? The person may be telling the truth, after all. I have no proof that the person is lying; just my own suspicions combined with friend-of-a-friend tales where panhandlers drive off in shiny new Cadillacs.

There’s also only so much help one person can give. Ideally, the greatest possible degree of assistance should be given to the largest percentage of people. With that in mind, is it better to give a greater amount of help to a few people, or a smaller amount to more? Would it be better to focus my efforts on helping people half a world away, or more locally? Which would have the greatest impact? Which is more beneficial? And should one group have a higher priority?

Some people say it’s hypocritical for someone to spend vast amounts of time and energy working to help people half a world away instead of those in one’s own community. I don’t know that this is an either-or proposition, really. If some people focus on providing local assistance while others put their efforts overseas, everyone is still getting help. Overall, the goal is still being met.

I’ve also found in myself a rather ugly attitude that if I’m giving help, the people receiving it owe me gratitude and should be happy for for what they get. I become annoyed when I make a donation and receive a response that boils down to, “thanks for the money; can we have more?” I find myself grumbling that I already gave, and where does this organization get off coming back for more? That makes no sense. Clearly I thought the charity needed my help, or I wouldn’t have contributed in the first place. Why am I upset by receiving confirmation that I was right?

After all, if we’re here to help one another, I’m just doing what I’m supposed to be doing. That doesn’t oblige the recipient to express gratitude or pretend that the assistance I gave solved the problem entirely. More to the point, is the help I’m giving somehow contingent on receiving acknowledgement or reward? It shouldn’t be. Should I be upset if the person I’m helping seems to assume that he (or she) is entitled to assistance? Because if our purpose really is to help one another, then wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect assistance if assistance is supposed to be provided?

I don’t have any answers, really. About all I can do it try to fight the whole “I want to help, but only when I want to do it, and only to people I think deserve it, and only as much as I want to” thing. It’s an ugly bit of wrong thinking that needs to be weeded out. Wish me luck.

Create a free website or blog at